michel123456

Excuse me but I understand nothing. I didn't know that attractive gravity was related to vacuum, not to tell to positive vacuum, and that negative vacuum was something that we had some evidence of and that this negative vacuum was related to repulsive gravity.

This argument you can find thousand times over the Internet. What I ask for is a corroborating evidence. An astronomical measurement of smaller distances between far away galaxies. Data.

I don't see anywhere data about distance being smaller between far away galaxy clusters. Maybe it is hidden somewhere inside the impressive planck dataset?

Also here http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/howdo-frame.html

Well it seems to me that you close your ears when he makes statements that are against your convictions. Hear and look after 1.59

It's Alan Guth, not any pop media video. Also here: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html

Can you provide evidence of this? Some data?

Obviously you did'nt follow the small video. You should. Here a screenshot.

The miracle of physics, these are Alan Guth's own words at 1.59. i'd like you to follow till the end, it is only 10 min. to reach A. Guth's little marble.

IIRC that is exactly where inflation comes on the basis of a spooky repulsive gravity thing.

We don't observe a wall of galaxy clusters in the deep universe.

Yes correct but..... is that what we are observing?

from your link I stoled the picture and edited, see below The ugly black points represent the galaxy clusters. They are close to each other at the perimeter (close to the BB instant) and farther appart from each other in the present (close to the center) because of space expansion. In this picture the universe is uniform in distribution ONLY for a specific distance (for a specific radius). If it is observed that the universe does not present such a picture then there must exist a discrepancy somewhere.

I don't understand how your answer relates to the universe being uniform in distribution on average.

hm no, I ment something else. When you picture the universe at time T, whatever time it is, it gives the picture of things that cannot "communicate" to each other, because in order to communicate it takes some amount of time. In a spacetime diagram, the objects that belong to the horizontal (the present) are objects that cannot see each other, objects that cannot physically interact. So the picture of a universe at some time T is something unphysical. And you cannot explain something physical (the Universe) on the basis of an unphysical situation.

Can you? Wouldn't that be considering things that cannot be related to each other? It is unphysical.

I guess it is a simple "effect" of the efficiency thing, if one can say so. With 100% of efficiency the factor should be unity. But maybe my guess is wrong. It goes far above my head. I wanted to be sure that the entangled electrons are detected as such and after that the spin is measured, and not the other way round.

Sorry I read and re-read the experiment description & your explanations and I understand nothing. This is what I understand: You have 2 detectors at some distance from each other (the SET). A pair of electrons is emitted. At one SET an electron is received, spin up (for sake of simplicity). Simultaniteously, another electron is received at the other SET, spin down. Where is the efficiency? Is that when there is no ectron at the 2nd SET? Or is that when no pair is emitted at all? Or is that when the 2nd electron has spin up and thus must be discarded because it is unentangled?

I had this remark before in an old thread but let's go on it again: At what time? At what time is it uniform in distribution on the average? I mean, there is no simultaneity throughout the Universe, so when we take a picture "on the average" of the universe, this "average" is distributed over time. The farther part will be in the past, the closest parts in the present. So, once you take into account the BBT, the Universe is changing its density over time (it is expanding), so the farthest parts that belong to the past should be denser than the closest parts. How then can it be " uniform on the average"?

I don't understand how you recognize an entangled photon from a non-entangled.

Wow. Hi-tech dentelle de Bruxelles. That is not what I had in mind though. I figured printing something not rigid, but flexible. A membrane directly printed in the shape & color you need.

He exposed a very sympathetic low profile for a new member.

Question From this page http://erc.europa.eu/succes-stories/how-entangle-two-electrons-%E2%80%93-and-do-it-again-and-again What is the "20% efficiency" part meaning? Does that mean that when the 2 electrons are entangled they show up & down spin and that when they don't show up & down spin the experimentalist decides that they were not entangled? And thus calculates the "efficiency"?

JCJ posted What's wrong with that? OTOH your post XYZT was very offensive. -1 for that. I mean BS is coming out of your mouth, if you don't understand what offensive means.

Someone else had the same question on this Forum where I am not going to log in.